The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-22
After Judge Campbell finished reading
the opinion Of the court,


JUDGE ARNOLD DIsSENTED:
lean concur In the opinion Of the majority Of the
court In 20 far ~ it rcNCrscs the Judgment to Eu
hanks, but dissent, with entire conhdcnco In the
correctness of my conclusion, in ~ lar NJ ID
niIms the Judgment gs io Hamilton. In the ncord
bcrhrc MS, Eulanks In my Judgment, should have
been discharged By the chancellor as innOocnt Of
the crime charged OF, II II were not Tor the lac that
since the trial below he has been indicted, and that
aprisoneT held under indictment may lc ballcd
but cannot bc Internationally discharged ON
hnhcns corpus, should unhcsiiatngly vote TO dis
ehagc him. In cqn.dcrus an application for
bail hciop conviction, | cannot fonsct that
the objctt 0f nrn.st and imprisonment prior
70 conviction Is not To- punish the accn-cd,
but 70 insurc his forthcoming Ia abide trial aud
the punishment that may bc iniicicd urOn him,
up 10 the scuicncc OF that law after conviction.
Church on hahcas corpus. Section lg5). Nor cnn
diNCst ny-eli of the grateful reelection that In n
land OF ircom il Is not until after conviction that
the law assumes the aspect oi terror aud eNics uu-
oondltlonallE ihe lotieiiIre 81 ne, iiberty, or
prugntss. The laws which establish and regulate
The right to bail ar not doubtful or uncertain Ia
Article T.. Section ;. Of The Constitution T. that
"ENc,.,lyc bali shall not bo r'luir,d and all per
Sons shall. before conviction. he balahlc BY suf-
cieni surcti~ except for capital oncnscs. when the
pn,9i p9,, ! e,ii'hl % & ne prsumguon great
Nision 'nnuiosn nothing morc norlcs than thai Tor
oil orcuscs not capital hail bctnrc conviction isa
right nf which no poron chn hc lawfully deprived
no matter what the proof ~ hi, gnilt ihay hc, AMI
in risronnc n capital nlcuscs it can mean nothing
else than that fuF thrm bail before conviction n
equally a matter of right. also, except Whcrv The
pf0oi ~ guilt g. evident ~ the presumption grrat
or. in other words that fur capital ocuscs leiotc
cunticuun hail " ~ unqualified constitutional
right nid san b. pruisfiy denied no marc iur that
,as- ui oiitUes than % tilu D. inr u1,uss not capt
tnl, cN', whtfc The proof q NJ such uaiurc us %
leave no well founded or rvgfouahlc doubt 81 thr
quit ui the prisoner. ~ clriil ohcnscs Wlicf tho
prnoi leaves 10 reasonable doubt ~ n the ruilt Of
The prisoner luii o. matter 81 light o. dnucd by
Law aud tuu be- fiahuuliv guuiel only iu CVrop.
a.
pnliracirl uud unusual dolny on thv part ui the
Siuic In bringing the prisoner 10 trial ct
suuh ns haNc anpttrd, or uW likely tu
seriously or fatally anst the health NJ the prisoner
The INT hnd humane roliry ui the law j. Tint hC
iorr rnuiripu. even In capital cu-C, whef' The
prooi Z evident or the presumption great thc llic
uia prisoner shall not - destroyed nor his health
permanently impard BY imprisonment and tlc
dcninl II Tall. nor shall be D. held without ball
whcrr his constitutional right t0 spcsdy Trial hes
h,cn WnutunlN oppretlNcly ur unrusuuahly
abridged. llut iail should Mt b. gmntrd un n.-
count "i,light lckncfs or ihc dangcr. tuheuns "
inconNcni"noc cumuionly incident ~ impr'son.
mcut. nof ilr delays In the pfolocutluu whlth ato
ncs-7afy in ururt the state reasonable uppnrtuul.
y 10 grsccul' iairiy ~ yauc lirii,vcl. 57Mi.s.
N anything sad in Neon ~. Tie state o. Niss.
l1s aud In u ~ " the tirtc o. Miss, 1lil IN.
siai,gi. Il was appropriately qnaliloi In cx paric
Ethirurii surnt II tirrlgrrd iu cV Iniir
Mmy y Nj e'l. aud in cx l.Eir liIdcvcll 90
Mis-. ~ that whrfc thrrc D. o. ugll founded or
rasunahc duubt OF thr guilt oi prisoner u cnunui
h. aid that tla pftdi L. evident 0r the pr,sump.
ilon gIcal # his rullt aud y q vel approved
dorfinc ~ his -itc illt whom upon tlr evidence
thcfc T. Probability ~ the ri fi0nJfs inuon'ucc
th'rp must H. a u'afuunhlo doubt n his guilt
tNclms ~ the State. ~ Ml.s. sls Nifou ~ The
STATE IS Mss, -. iiwWung w. the smie, -
Miss.. efL
Thc poicyof tho constitution hnd law, II Ml,.
sissipfl in ivrari ~ bail o. lileml nul uas "a.
prrssiy thamcierirri ~ such by Judge Harris.
speaking tuf the hlFh cuuu ~ cfrlr and nrpCh's
w Moon w. the state III Miss, lIfl II this policy
hna hccn chnnrcd of ~ thcrc 4 any urnfon Why n
should bcchaugcd " this day. am not advised si
I The constitution ou the suhjoCt "a The same
nov that was then and no .ucl change hus bcrn
wruurhi hy statute ur amy deitinn 81 this Cuuu.
aud u thrfr is any decision u this r1uu whirh
cnn ho properly continued by anybody ~ have
tuch cnort DO not cannot hgi ! WI not 'ub.
dcniand H. and j. applicable Without fCaf favor
or affection % aii alike
The iudral onic,t who hears an application
Tor ball s the ircf oi The facts. and must deter
miue on bis own Judgment hud conscience
whether the onfudrr under The law whfriniH hail
or not but iu doing 20. he "a ruyctnCd by tho cB.
tbli,hei ruirs III Law, such ns I have stated. A
matter ui fn much Importance, ana capable ol D..
coming fouuc ~ ~ much Nrfntiun aud I'm.
pussiOn. h not and shall not hc lcit 10 the mcr'
onrfiCc or viii ~ pleasure 81 any ouutt 90 nny o.
hr,r. When called upon hero in frtlCw a ludg.
| mcut denying haluc afv FUfcrncd By Tie same
tulcs u law which ounirpl the action ~ The officer
| below. We aor0fd 10 hls Judgment the pHma
fnrla pfctumptigu Of Cufrcingl which aiinchCs
81 thcludgmtntoi q all courts oi competent luT,-
SaniSgs. w. 'i6S H wbIt6 6c chiaysd @ dsiSnanIns 6c
tfc,iihliiy uf WiinCwn hy feciug nud hcnrnf
them testify but what weight shall h. nsrrihod ~
the appellate court tp such judgment muti depend
ON the circumstances oi each caic.
Thcfc q no cssilfVn rule ON The subject II .,
certain that there arr several cases IN this state w
which bail Wa denied below on tho Tact, and
which were niirfWard rVVrurd on appeal, and ball
Emntrd herr on The same iaCu and facts quite a,
strong against the prisoner, u seems IN me, ~
those ia the case bCiufr w. u sgms to mo that
one can properly attach bur llilc Importance In
tho case III bar 10 The conclusion ~ the chan
cnlior ns 10 the laris cor ono unanimous opinion
reversing the Judgment ~ 90 lllanks ckplulci. NJ.
IA as 0iir indfmfnt can dn 90 tie theory of con
tpincy. AMI ui moW persons than Hamilton nnd
Gambrll being CuEagel In TIC tmEcly upon
which the prosecution has been Cnuducicd aud
upon which the Judgment oi The chancellor wa'
| cFidcugy hscd Rejecting uirn nf wC nll DO. ihg
trc0ry u the State ns 10 bow The homi,iic Or
cuucl, II becomes vital 20 know how Oh,
fatal difficulty tommCncld Ou The hrlEc' wla
Ma ihc hut Denomination made, md by whom
what waa tho frt thluH sid or dnur on The meet
inr 0f thc two armed AMI hostile mon, under Cif
sfimfinucos in which the slightest mos cinent on
III tsti OF The Que would have bcvu accepted af
io-ln d war By The othcE 1hcip ere. ~ addition
10 thcte iatu. sctcul cle Niinrtes lu ilu imisic
Hon. Who's. i,.tinony on ih.rc puin's y efviiied
nv th4t n vas impossible inf ihr inris ~ have gc
c,,sred ta which thcy icsIb. Then i. i0 fal ih'
lonat of H. such uncertainty at W. pfudugu wei
i5undri and m. uHnb'e doubt 100 NY Judgment
AMI an hHuud uudgf DE tht 'nnr lhh. o. ft".h
pirh doubt 100 iafuf 81. thu ifis1ucf lhc iial "
low isinf ,ondufiul uu The Clutiiufl lir1fy
haulicsty oniaf.od Tie soopc VI iutciisauol v